Re: My (ongoing) analysis of the proposed modules
- From: Glynn Foster <glynn foster sun com>
- To: Luis Villa <louie ximian com>
- Cc: GNOME Desktop Hackers <desktop-devel-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: My (ongoing) analysis of the proposed modules
- Date: 13 May 2003 22:18:15 -0700
> I guess my main issue here is that these seem to be fairly weak pros for
> throwing away a tested (if imperfect) codebase. battstat has some
> issues, like mediocre ACPI support. It seems we're potentially throwing
> that out in favor of... poor/unknown ACPI support, in favor of...
> slightly simpler UI, and Yet Another Capplet, copying functionality from
> the xscreensaver capplet 99% of us already have.
> So, basically, the 'have a notion of power management beyond the battery
> applet' is a good idea, but it seems like we need much more testing and
> integration of this code base before we consider throwing out something
> that works, presenting us both with new testing issues and upgrade
> problems (as jeff mentions in his worms.) [Aside: maybe GEP 10 needs to
> explicitly say 'things replacing old, tested apps should face a higher
> standard of scrutiny'?]
Yeah, I'm willing to postpone this until it's more properly thought out.
FWIW, battfink uses exactly the same code as battstat for the ACPI
stuff, so it *should* be working the same. I think we could probably do
the 'Yet Another Capplet' discussion at GU4DEC though.
It would probably also be a good idea to try and sort out the
notification area guidelines in the meantime too, so we can bring some
sort of consistancy to everything that is using the feature.
> [lean towards yes until we actually have a sysadmin tools thing]
> Basically, it'd be a big regression if we nuke this functionality now.
> That would be a shame.
And a regression if someone doesn't stand up to write the compatibility
gdialog/zenity script thing.
] [Thread Prev